« Ten thoughts on the reshuffle | Main | Cameron's standing with grassroots yet to recover from grammarsgate »


Good news for us already. Most favourable pollster to Labour, taken during the terror scare & right after the coronation. Brown bounce already weakening. Just one poll of course....

Political betting were suggesting a10% Lab lead was possible so this is v good considering Browns media coverage and the nit wit defecting

Any poll with Labour in the lead is disappointing... but Populus is a pollster that has often been generous to Labour, furthermore you have to contend with summer polls that can be skewed and thats before we factor in the blanket and largely positive coverage of Brown's accession and then the abortive terrorist attacks that would be likely to reinforce support for any incumbent government...

But it'd be wrong to read too much into it, either way... though it might suggest that we're on course to contain the "Brown surge" and pretty promptly (touch wood!).

"Most favourable pollster to Labour" that is run by the Finkelstein's SDP clique who "advised" Hague.

This poll is consistent with that of other polling companies. Cameron's poll ratings have slumped since "grammargate".


Interestingly DC's rating have improved on issues such as "leadership" and "strength"...

..."Change2lose?" [rolls eyes in exasperation]

Labour really will have to move further ahead over the next few weeks if they are to avoid losing their majority at the next election.

The weakening of the Lib Dems is a massive boost for the Conservatives.

Populus polls this year have not been particularly favourable to Labour average Labour % 32.5 compared with ICM 32 and Yougov 33 .
It is the Conservatives not LibDems who have lost support as Labour have taken the lead .
Changes since March
Yougov Con -4 Lab +7 LibDem -2
ICM Con -6 Lab +8 LibDem N/C
Populus Con -4 Lab +4 LibDem N/C
The weakening of the Conservatives is a massive boost for the LibDems to paraphrase Shaun

Yes, I am sure that the betrayal of selection - the grubbiest sell-out of modern politics - has seriously hampered the tory recovery. Mr Cameron has to learn that there is all the difference in the world between reaching out to the floating vote and abandoning your convictions. True, on Europe and the family he seems to have recognised this distinction. Why, then, does he not apply this principle of moderation and prudence across the board? Politics should not be about selling one policy position in order to safeguard another. It should involve the active propagation of one's own convictions. From such a position flows honest politics and true democracy, in which the electorate is faced with up front alternatives sincerely offered. If the result is an election loss then so much the worse for the deluded electorate. Only time and the impositions of socialism will convert them from their egregious folly - that, and heafty doses of truly conservative campaigning. In the reign of Mr Cameron, the backroom boys with their clever wheezes and contempt for ordinary political fighting have taken over. Truth to tell, they have been in power since the loss of so much experience and talent in the great cull of 97. Their vacillations arise from the search for a magic Blairite bullet which will send them into the seventh heaven of office with one bound. For several reasons, this panacea does not and cannot exist. For one thing the Labour core was sufficiently disillusioned to accept centrism in 97. The Tories know that history has vindicated them. Why should they compromise will slyly unrepentant reds? With people who refused to believe the truth about Russia or China or Cuba? Who smashed our schools? Who connived at disarming the free world in the face of bolshevik threats? Who have allowed a flood of hostile economic migration to hollow out the culture of Europe? Why compromise with such intellectual and moral ordure? Fight with heart and soul for your beliefs in freedom and the nation state and the passion that rings in your voice will startle and draw the most jaded. Ecrasez l'infame, said Voltaire, smash the infamous thing. That thing is socialism and it should be our mission, even at this dark hour, to annihilate it, the cancer which is rotting our civilisation.

Thanks Mark. Many "loyal" posters on this site spin CCHQ nonsense.

A corrupt and incompetent government, now led by the Dour One, is giving the "Heir to Blair" a pasting. If Clegg replaces the Minger, there will be a substantial swing from Con to LD.

Cameron is in big trouble and this reshuffle has put a few round pegs in important square holes. Boy Gideon in charge of the election? What a pathetic joke!

Actually during grammer gate our poll rating went up to 6%. DC hasnt been in the news PMQ's may be a turning point either way, but i think when we start making the news again with our policies and conference we will be boosted its what happened after the 2006 party conference, Labour where just ahead of us then in some polls. Our poll ratings seem to be driven by media coverage so im sure they will improve! also notice the SUN hasnt swung behind Gord yet!

"Labour really will have to move further ahead over the next few weeks if they are to avoid losing their majority at the next election"

Err why's that? It's oppositions that lose momentum as a general election approaches, not a government.The Tories should have a double figure poll lead to be sure of simply depriving Labour of a majority in two years time.

Labour really will have to move further ahead over the next few weeks if they are to avoid losing their majority at the next election.
I am somewhat sceptical over the reliability of opinion polls especially mid term opinion polls, however it has to be pointed out that usually governments hit their peaks of unpopularity in the 2nd and 3rd years of the term and recover to a greater or lesser extent in the 4th year - even in the past 3 terms governments had a mid-term slump with the Conservatives having their worst election results around 1995 and making a bit of a recovery, in Labour's first term the fuel protests, the 2nd term dissension from those opposed to the War in Iraq switching to the Liberal Democrats and Respect with a slight drift back.

Governments time unpopular measures to be introduced towards the beginning of parliaments leaving the candy to later and whatever shade of government it is this goes on to some extent and there is a bit of a recovery.

The biggest losses of support since 1997 by Labour have been to the Liberal Democrats and breakaway Independents and small Socialist Parties and there has been a drift of such support back to Labour since 2004.

These (few) poll results were not unexpected following the public's relief at the departure of Blair. As such, we're probably in no worse a position than we were some weeks ago when we enjoyed a lead. The problem then, as now, is that we don't seem to be targeting those who have abandoned voting. It's all very well to reach out to soft Labour or LibDem voters with our emphasis on the environment and the NHS. But how many more of these electors can be peeled away by us?

"57% say that Mr Brown has what it takes to be Prime Minister compared to 37% who say the same of Gordon Brown"

Mr Brown seems to be featured twice there! Do you mean Cameron, Tim?

To be honest there's no reason in getting excited in any polls until Brown has been in office for a while. Trying to read them as either way is rather daft.

Give him his 100 days, then come back at 6 and 12 months. Brown might extend his lead - it might shrink. At this point no one knows, so it's rather pointless speculating.

Yet Another Anon - Remember that this is effectively a new government, so the rule over year 1, 2, 3, 4, etc is probably irrelevant to what will happen to Brown.

I say that Labour really need to be further ahead in the polls over the next few months to avoid losing their majority simply because if they do not move well ahead in the first few weeks of Brown's leadership, then they probably never will. They need to build up a big buffer to resist the tide towards a hung parliament that is probably inevitable anyway.

Mark Senior may try to convince us that his Liberal Democrat party is doing brilliantly while the Tories are weakening, but I'm afraid that the OPPOSITE is shown by most of the polls conducted over the last couple of weeks.

The fact that he felt the need to come along to Conservative Home to pedle his propaganda probably shows how despreate the Lib Dems are now becomming. If they go down to a bad defeat in Ealing Southall-as some are now starting to whisper-then it really will be the Lib Dem leadership in crisis rather than David Cameron.

Tory T = the completely useless MM

compared to Bullingdon Club member, not Brown, surely?

So far, I'm impressed with Brown. He has immediately distanced himself from Blair's internationalist stance, reigniting ancient notions of Britishness and national pride overnight. This while drawing the sting from yet another Euro sellout, which is effectively out of the news. Events, dear boy....

I sense a sea change, with Cameron still responding to yesterday's frame of reference. Mr Cameron should note that flirtations with English nationalism at the expense of the Scots will end in tears -- a divided union and subordination to a federal Europe. The UK and Scotland, like Canada and Quebec, will be tottering at the precipice for some time to come. But Scotland is in a much stronger position than Quebec -- it has the perceived safety net provided by the EU to fall back on.


What no-one (as far as I can see ) has drawn attention to is the real point of why people despise Cameron and the rest of his silver-spoon milksop never-had-to-struggle-for-anything-in their lives public schoolboys which is this: he / they clearly believe in NOTHING WHATSOEVER SAVE THEIR OWN PERSONAL ADVANCEMENT. To take the simplest example: it is possible to argue the case for allowing grammar schools if local electors vote for them (as Tories used to do) or equally to argue that they are a Bad Thing (as Labour used to do). What is wholly incoherent intellectually is to have as your policy 'The electors of Kent may vote for grammar schools if they wish BUT NOT THE ELECTORS OF SUSSEX / YORKSHIRE / Wherever' ....... [ Esp. from a party one of whose most recent obsessions claims to be 'Localism' ]. This is totally unprincipled and probably impossible anyway from a legal point of view [Human Rights and EU law ( which Cameron has not undertaken to abolish [ not that any such promise would be believable after the EPP-ED withdrawal fiasco ] ) both frown on treating citizens unequally within the same State so a national law which purported to allow GSs in Kent but not elsewhere would be struck down by Judges. ]

I loathe Brown and all his last 10 years' works but despite all the terrible mistakes he has made over tax credits, grotesquely uncontrolled immigration, giving free rein to the head-in-the-clouds judges, and all the rest of it, at least one can see a degree of coherence and principle in what he is trying to do.

He and his colleagues are incompetent (largely because like Dave et al none of them has ever done any work apart from in academia and bag-carrying at Party HQ before baggsing safe seats ) but at least some of them believe a bit in what they are doing so the public gives them a reluctant half marks. With Lord Snooty and Yoiks Johnson and the rest the public can see that not only are they incompetent, never having had to do a serious day's work in the whole of their over-privileged worthless lives, - but they are not even pretending to possess an ounce (or should that be gramme ) of principle - so they get zero marks.
Quite seriously, on major issues Brown is now positioned a bit to the right of Cameron - so for Tories, other than tribal loyalty, what exactly is the point of voting for the present 'Tory' party ? So its jeunesse Bullingdone'e can play at administering left-liberal taurine excrement-ary policies ? Why vote for Labour's pale imitation when you can have Labour in the first place ?

This poll proves very little for the long term and in the short term it merely demonstrates the widely expected Brown bounce.Whilst it is not the best of news for us Tories it is also not enough to go by on its own. We need to see what the polls say for the next few months, and whether they are consistent in what they say, before being able to draw any concrete conclusions.

Yet Another Anon - Remember that this is effectively a new government, so the rule over year 1, 2, 3, 4, etc is probably irrelevant to what will happen to Brown.
Most people I think realise that Gordon Brown has been deciding most of what has been happening in socio-economic policy by government for the past 10 years.

There have been a number of structural changes, but then again there were after the 2001 and 2005 General Elections and at various times between and since; there are a number of new government ministers, but so there have been after reshuffles while keeping the same PM in the past, it is only a slightly bigger change than those of 2001 and 2005.

Brown looks exhausted.

This can only get worse as he tries to do it all.

The virtuous economy that sustained Labour through ten years of growth looks vulnerable.

Interest rates about to rise again. 6% and more looks likely.

Taxes are hitting spending.

Pensions are shockingly bad.

Inflation (RPI) is 5% and rising.

The eurozone is in a mess. Spain in meltdown selling its gold reserves to shore up government bonds. Italy and Greece in serious deficit. Now France is refusing to reduce its annual borrowing. The Germans alone cannot take up the strain.

Euro inflation is high - much higher than their figures suggest as here the CPI is a joke. International investors are swapping back into the dollar. The Euro will not survive. The Con Treaty is a desperate to stop Europe disintegrating. And it won't work.

Tory T = the completely useless MM

It is not fair use words like that. "Tory T" is either Cameron's mother or a "Save Dave" activist from CCHQ doing his job.

I say that Labour really need to be further ahead in the polls over the next few months to avoid losing their majority

Yes things look desperate for Labour with only 3 years to go to the next election and a majority of 67......it must be worrying Brown that Cameron might announce an election and go to the country now he's locked up the Comprehensive Spending Review until 2010......

No matter how far ahead Brown is in the polls it is not enough to escape the inevitability of victory by Cameron & Co - it is the Historical Dialectic....

Consuming fewer hallucinogenics might improve perceptions from fantasists posting at the top of this thread

Posted by: Tapestry | July 03, 2007 at 04:52

Hyperbolically pessimistic. I had to laugh at the 'purple prose'. Do you break out in cold sweats at night ?

The old mantra of pestilence and plague and only George Osborne can save Europe.....LOL

Brown bounce already weakening. Just one poll of course....

Excuse me while I die laughing.

The 'Save Dave' brigade are predictably out in force with their armchair warrior analysis of the spectacular collapse of the 10%+ lead Cameron was once alleged to have.

Of course their tendency to fall back upon historical inevitability is based more upon sheer desperation than Marxian 'logic'. The sad fact is that they have no shot left in their locker.

Meanwhile the real news (the reshuffle has been treated as the stunning non-event it was)is the further collapse in Cameron's standing among CH activists, rightly highlighted on Newsnight yesterday and in today's report on the reshuffle tucked away into s corner of the front page of the Telegraph

But Mr Cameron's attempt to regain the political initiative with a wide-ranging reshuffle is undermined by the release of a poll today which shows that 40 per cent of Tory activists are dissatisfied with his performance as leader. In January Mr Cameron's approval rating was 82 per cent.

Truly CH speaks for us, the party grassroots.

David Cameron appears to be trying just a little too hard to please centre ground. Ironically, Ken Clarke would hardly have to do anything to appeal to centrist. The Tories have thrown the next election away by choosing Cameron over Clarke. Milliband got it right - give the older man a go first and then take over when your gravitas has increased.

Irish, you're forgetting this isn't a presidential system. It wouldn't have been enough for Clarke to "be" centralist - the problem is the Tory party which keeps digging its heels in and throwing temper-tantrums on the supermarket floor.

In poll research, Cameron did appear centre-right - the party, though, was stuck much further on the right side of the political spectrum. Clarke would have had the same problem as Cameron in that respect.


Traditional Tory, you do realise that people like you are one of the Labour Party's best assets. What are you going to do other than fall back on failed policies that lost the last three elections? It's so funny you guys are in denial about right-wing policies.

You seem to relish the idea of your own party crumbling again. Talk about cutting off your own nose to spite your face!

I think many of the above correspondents live in a dream world. On the half ten ITV News last night, it said that whilst Lab had 37% compared to our 34%, due to heavy bias in their favour re seats, they would get c. 350 seats and us c.216. If correct, what realistic chance do we stand of gaining power at the next election. Let us remember that Gordon Brown is a devious and cunning sod, i.e pillaging pension funds and his 2p in the pound income tax reduction trick.

I am right of centre but in my view, if we are to stand any chance at the next election we have got to get back the voters we lost in 1997 and who as yet have not returned to us- right wing policies will not do that. Any one who has canvassed recently should know that the lost 1997 votes could be crucial.

Posters on here are getting ever more vile and offensive. Even by my standards.

Can we tone it down please?

I question whether half of them are even Conservative supporters.

I question whether half of them are even Conservative supporters.

I have always thought the same thing, Graham. The Labour Party can't buy this sort of negativity and in-fighting. Either the Tories are forever doomed to wander the wilderness because the traditionalist stick-in-the-muds prefer fighting other members rather than compromise, or there are quite a few fakes here.

Personally I'm undecided, though I have voted Conservative in the past.

Put these poll results into www.electoralcalculus.co.uk and you get: -

National Prediction: LAB majority 62

Party---Pred Votes---Pred Seats


What are you going to do other than fall back on failed policies that lost the last three elections?

So you secret is to find the next GE with NO policies ?

The Conservatives have been utter disasters in elections since 1992 - they have been bizarre - and half-hearted...but if I look at disasters few wre worse than 2001 when William Hague gave Labour the election


Meanwhile, the first opinion poll since Blair called the general election showed Labour on course to increase its House of Commons majority.

The NOP poll for the Daily Express newspaper recorded a 20-point lead for Labour over the main opposition Conservative Party, with Blair's party on 51 percent.

If that margin of victory was reproduced on June 7, Labour could secure a majority of as much as 255 -- an improvement of 76 on its current 179-seat advantage.

The Conservatives, whose sole election success in recent years was their victory in the European Parliament elections of 1999, which they fought on the slogan of “Save The Pound”, plan to mount a similar campaign in the latter stages of this campaign.


Turnout 'at 80-year low'

As counting continued through the night, it looked as though the overall turnout could be as low as 58%.

Turnout looks as though it is going to be lousy

Lady (Shirley) Williams, Lib Dem
This compares with 71.6% at the 1997 General Election, which itself was the lowest turnout since the Second World War. It would be the lowest turnout since the election of 1918 when the turnout was 57%.

It seems likely that more people will fail to vote than will vote for the Labour Party, which has secured a second consecutive landslide victory.

The public apathy means that Labour may secure the support of just one in four people eligible to vote.

The BBC polled people who decided not to vote.

Some 77% said there was no point in voting because it would not change a thing, while 65% said they did not trust politicians. Just over half said it was obvious that Labour would win anyway.

Among the 18-24 age group just 38% said they planed to vote. The figure for the 25-34 group was 45%, and for the 35-64 group it was 62%.

Wed May 4 2005

The latest Populus/Times tracker poll is the only mainstream poll out today, with other pollsters saving their eve-of-poll predictions for tomorrow. It shows Labour unchanged on 41 per cent and the Lib Dems up two points at 23 per cent at the expense of the Conservatives (27 per cent, down 2 per cent).

This result gives Labour a majority of 168 seats, up on the notional 158 seats that they would have won at the last election if the current boundaries in Scotland had applied in 2001. Such a result would send shock waves through the Conservative Party.

Sun May 1 2005

MORI's Observer poll results reports that 61% of people say they trust Charles Kennedy to tell the truth, 32% Tony Blair, and Howard on 36% per cent — slightly above Blair.

However, in the ICM / Sunday Telepgraph poll just 3% of people said Iraq was the most important issue deciding their vote on Thursday, the most important being health, and taxation and public services, issues on which Labour has a comfortable lead.

In YouGov's Sunday Times poll 55% of those questioned did not feel that the Conservatives were ready for government.

The raft of polls that came out today all indicate a Labour lead of 4-8% putting Labour comfortably into power in five days time on May 6th.

Assuming uniform national swing, the MORI swingo seat prediction model would give Labour a majority of 134, using the ICM / Sunday Telegraph poll, a majority of 94 using the MORI / Observer poll, and a majority of 92 using the YouGov / Sunday Times poll.

The YouGov / Sunday Times poll which puts the Conservatives up one point and the Lib Dems down one point, on Friday's poll for the Telegraph, would give Labour 369 seats (down only 43), Conservatives 184 seats (up 18) and the Lib Dems 62 seats (up 10).

Analysis using the MORI swingo model indicates that even if there were an 8% national uniform swing from Labour to the Lib Dems, putting Labour on 32%, Conservatives on 31% and Lib Dems on 30%, there would still be a 50-seat Labour majority with the Lib Dems gaining just 90 seats.

Tuesday 26 April 2005

Today's polls show Labour leading over the Conservatives with a margin of 8-10 per cent, which would return a 160-162 seat majority on a zero swing from Labour to Conservative.

The Liberal Democrats have paraded their newly-defected arch-New Labour critic MP, Brian Sedgemore, in a bid to win over Labour voters disaffected with the Iraq war and prove themselves to be the 'The Real Opposition', in line with their campaign slogan.

The national (GB) share of the vote projected by the exit poll is 37% Labour, 33% Conservative and 22% Liberal Democrat.

The current GB share of the vote from seats counted is 36% Labour, 33% Conservative and 23% Liberal Democrat.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker